Chapter VIII: Avowals (2)

1. "The Fourth General Council set forth a creed in which the perfect doctrine was taught concerning the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Then it decreed that it was lawful for nobody to propose or teach others another faith. Those who should dare to do it, if bishops or clergy, were to be deposed; if laymen, to be anathematized." Now, in violation of this canon, one King Reccared, in Spain, in the year 589, did ignorantly or wilfully put the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son into the Nicene Creed, and sing the addition in his private chapel. After him it appears that Charlemagne committed the same offence, and the pope, though he objected to the proceeding, did not stop it. The conclusion, therefore, is that, even though this doctrine be true, the civil power, or "the crown in council," defined it; and secondly, that the Roman pontiff is worthy of deposition because he winked at this disobedience to a decree of the oecumenical council. We consider this whole charge as rather trivial, and as already answered by the words of Mr. Ffoulkes himself. He admits that the popes, while always defending the doctrine as true, did not approve the addition to the creed in the way in which it took place. It was, however, an expression of an orthodox dogma which came spontaneously from the people and bishops, in which they were seconded by their rulers. The papal objection to the movement was manifestly on the ground that additions to the creed should come from the proper authority, and that the precedent of Reccared was dangerous in practice. To say that the civil power was the tribunal which settled this doctrine, is to say something supremely ridiculous, when the very words of the objector show that the whole movement came from the ecclesiastical body. Catholics believe that the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son was always a part of the deposit of faith, and that its expression in the symbols of the church was only the confession of a dogma ever at least implicitly professed. When the head of the church by his supreme authority placed this doctrine in the creed--which he had, according to our belief, an undoubted right to do--he did not sanction the action of Reccared or Charlemagne, although he certainly gave his infallible approval to the dogma. We think this proceeding of the "crown in council" a very harmless one. Would that Elizabeth had been as innocent in regard to the church which she established!

It seems, then, that the pope did not allow the thing of which our objector complains, and so charge the first falls to the ground.

2. "The Roman pontiff, however, did himself alter the creed, and thus break the canon of the Council of Ephesus." We admit the gravamen of this accusation. The pope did, in answer to the wish of the great majority of the Christian world, place the "_Filioque_" in the Nicene symbol, or sanction its insertion. But three questions arise, the reply to which will settle very clearly the whole difficulty. What is the true meaning of the Ephesine canon to which Mr. Ffoulkes so often refers? Is the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son a true doctrine? Did the pontiff go beyond his authority in allowing its introduction into the creed?

In the first place, we find that our objector has put a singular and most impossible construction upon the seventh canon of the Council of Ephesus, which forms the one string upon which he harps with such a dissonant monotony. He interprets that canon to forbid any after definitions of faith, and to altogether abdicate the infallibility of the church. In his view the Council of Chalcedon takes up the same theme, and virtually renounces for all time the power which Christ left on earth to teach and decide in questions of doctrine. It is evident to any sane person that the church could not have thus renounced its own gifts, and practically voted itself out of existence. And facts beyond all question prove that such an idea never entered into the heads of the fathers of Ephesus or Chalcedon. The Roman pontiff, as the head of the Catholic Church, and the councils which have been assembled under his direction, have ever dealt with heresy as did the first five councils, and have even made, as time rendered it necessary, fresh definitions of faith. By Mr. Ffoulkes's construction of the canons, the popes and all the western bishops have been deposed and excommunicated since the Fifth General Council.[147]

The simple truth is, that the Ephesine canon only forbade any one to bring in a faith _contrary_ to the one already defined, and never dreamed of denying the office of the church to do for future ages what the _Ecclesia docens_ was then doing for its own times. The words of the council are, "It shall be lawful for no one to put forth another faith than that defined by the Fathers of Nice," "_Alteram fidem nemini licere proferre, præter definitam a Sanctis Patribus qui in Nicæâ cum Sancto Spiritu congregati fuerunt._" Any person not bewildered by religious eccentricities can easily see that this canon, in the first place, only refers to any denial of the creed of Nice; and, secondly, that it has in view the actions of private individuals, and in no way that of the church collectively or its supreme ruler. Mr. Ffoulkes then harps upon the creations of his own fancy, and the legitimate consequence of his conclusions is the annihilation of the whole ecclesiastical body, and the _reductio ad absurdum_.

But is the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son true or false, according to authorities which even our objector considers adequate? Those who are best acquainted with patristic theology tell us that this doctrine was always taught by both eastern and western fathers, though the mode of expression might differ. The Greeks afterward misunderstood the Latin "_Filioque_" as if in the act of spiration the Father and the Son were as two distinct principles. The Latins, however, objected to the preposition "per," as if in the eternal act the Son were only an instrument or canal. The dogma that the Holy Ghost proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son as from one principle, and in one action, was unquestionably the belief of the early church. Pope Hormisdas, A.D. 521, seventy years before the conversion of Reccared, thus writes to the emperor, "It is known to all that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son under one substance of the Deity." The same doctrine is clearly stated in the synodical epistle of St. Cyril of Alexandria. There is no necessity in this place to refer to other authorities, which are very numerous. The Roman pontiff, acting, as Catholics believe, in his capacity as the head of the church, allowed this dogma to be confessed in the Constantinopolitan creed; and afterward the Synod of Florence, at which Greek bishops were present, solemnly defined it. The action in this matter of the holy see is very simply stated. It is hard to say at what precise time the "_Filioque_" was first inserted in the symbol of faith. It seems to have been used in Spain in the time of Reccared, and thence to have passed into Germany, Gaul, and Italy. The objection of the pope to its introduction in the first instance was, that it was done by private individuals and without authority. Thus, St. Leo III., while commanding the doctrine to be taught, orders its ejection from the creed only on this ground. So much is taught us by Mr. Ffoulkes himself. At last, when its use became general and was demanded by the consent of all, Benedict VIII. gave to it his supreme sanction.

The question now arises, if the Roman pontiff exceeded his authority in this action? By the testimony of fathers and councils, we are certain that he only sanctioned the confession of a doctrine received by the early church, and solemnly defined by later days as a part of the original deposit of faith, and as contained in the revelation of the mystery of the Holy Trinity. Had he the right thus to act in controversies of faith? If he had not, then not in this instance alone, but in many others has he gone beyond the bounds of his authority, and objectors might as well find fault with every pope from St. Peter down as to weary themselves over a single fact of history. The popes have always claimed the right thus to act, and the Christian world has yielded it to them, and Catholics believe that they have it from Christ. According to the Catholic doctrine, the papacy is essential to the constitution of the church. There could no more be a church without the pope than a man without ahead. Writers like Mr. Ffoulkes do not seem to comprehend this, and so, taking for granted that which should be proved, indulge in much self-complacency. We pass on, then, to examine whether the Roman pontiffs owe any of the power which they exercised to the forged decretals of Isidore.

3. It is now pretty well settled that the Isidorian collection of canons had their origin in France, and not at Rome, and that they were framed not in the interest of the holy see, whose powers were unquestioned, but in the interest of the bishops. The decretals of the popes and of the oecumenical councils formed the canon law of the church; and the first code of canons which received any kind of official sanction at Rome was that of Dionysius in the sixth century. Whenever the need of a new rule was felt, the pontiffs legislated by their decretals, the originals of which were preserved in the papal archives. That these decretals had full authority, appears by the epistles of Celestine I. and Leo the Great, and from the preface of Dionysius to his collection. The false decretals of Isidore began to be circulated about the year 853, and at first attracted little attention. Pope Nicholas I., in a letter to Hincmar of Rheims, A.D. 863, commanded that "no one should dare to pronounce a judgment except in accordance with the canons of Nicæa, and of the other councils, and in agreement with the decrees of the Roman pontiffs Siricius, Innocent, Zosimus, Celestine, Boniface, Leo, Hilary, Gregory, and others, saving in all things the rights of the apostolic see."

He makes no reference to the decretals of Isidore, which were then gaining acceptance, and certainly never thought of basing his authority upon them. These decretals may be reduced to three classes: first, the genuine canons or decrees of popes; second, those which were substantially genuine; third, those which were wholly spurious. "This last class," says the _American Cyclopædia_, "only contained what already existed. The evil done by this forgery was to history and erudition, and not to the discipline of the church." They were in accordance with the recognized ecclesiastical system, and good counterfeits of the true decretals. It was not wonderful, therefore, that they should have gradually come into use, as a genuine collection of the early code of the church. For two centuries after their first appearance, they remained neglected by the popes, and apparently unknown to them. With the exception of one or two quotations by Hadrian II. and Stephen IV., no one of the pontiffs referred to them before the middle of the eleventh century. After this period, when they were generally received, and no doubt was entertained of their authenticity, the popes began to quote them with the same freedom as was used in the case of the Hadrianic collection.

We remark, therefore, that the forgery was neither favored nor patronized by the Roman pontiffs; and secondly, that the false decretals gave to the pope no power which he did not already possess, and that by universal consent. For the proof of the latter assertion we need only cite one or two authorities.

In the first place, one must be endowed with a marvellous credulity to believe that a private collection of canons could have had the power to convert the bishop of Rome from a pastor of a particular city or country into the ruler of the whole church, the possessor of prerogatives before unknown to the Christian world. And the marvel is increased when we consider that this great change must have taken place without any protest by the patriarchs or councils who were thus called upon to pay obedience to a new ecclesiastical superior. He that can believe this can believe any thing, no matter how absurd it may be. The truth is, that the false decretals could not have obtained so easy acceptance and universal recognition if they had not been in accordance with the received doctrine and constitution of the church.

In the second place, the careful study of the earlier oecumenical councils will persuade any honest mind that the papal supremacy was firmly established in the heart of Christendom. The Synod of Sardica solemnly acknowledged the supreme authority of the Roman pontiff; and in so doing it did not constitute any new order of things, but simply recognized a fact of divine institution. No council ever pretended to give any power to the apostolic see, but simply to enunciate, as belonging to the very constitution of the church, the rights and dignity given to St. Peter and his successors from Christ. Four hundred years before the forgery of the decretals, Innocent I. writes, in accordance with the canon law of his age, "If weighty matters come to be discussed, (_causæ majores_,) they are to be referred to the apostolic see after the judgment of the bishops, according as the synod has established and the holy custom requires." In thus claiming the prerogatives of the Roman see the pontiffs are all of one accord from the earliest day. The code of Justinian declares, "We do not allow that any thing which concerns the affairs of the church should pass unreferred to his blessedness the Roman pontiff, for he is the head of all the holy priests of God." Thus, Gelasius in his decree at the Council of Rome, 494, says, "The holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church was placed over all the churches by no synod, but obtained the primacy by the voice of our Lord and Saviour himself." "No one ever," says Boniface I., "attempted to lift up his hand against the apostolic greatness, from whose judgment there is no appeal whatever." The Eighth General Council (869) defined the supremacy of the Roman see in the strongest terms, and the formula of Pope Hormisdas was signed by the Greek bishops and patriarchs. In this formula it is distinctly stated that "in the apostolic see the true faith is ever preserved immaculate," and that "they who consent not to this see are separate from the communion of the Catholic Church." The formula also quotes the words of our Lord, "_Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church_." The Greek schism, however, required the reassertion of this doctrine, and it was accordingly defined as of faith in the Fourth Lateran Council, a.d. 1215; again in the second of Lyons, A.D. 1274, and again in the Council of Florence, A.D. 1439. The language of this latter synod is,

"We define that the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold the
primacy in the whole world, and that the Roman pontiff himself is
the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, the
true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church, and the father
and teacher of all Christians; and that to him, in the person
of Peter, our Lord Jesus Christ gave full power to feed, rule,
and govern the whole church, as is contained in the acts of the
oecumenical councils and the sacred canons."

In this definition the Greeks, who were represented at this synod, fully concurred.[148] The year following, the Patriarch Metrophanes, by an evangelical letter, announced to the whole oriental world the reunion of the Greek and Latin churches, mentioning at the same time the doctrines defined in the decree of reconciliation. The singular charges made by Mr. Ffoulkes against the Council of Florence and Pope Eugenius merit perhaps a brief notice. He denies the regularity of the council, and accuses the pope of every kind of duplicity to control and beguile the Greek bishops. In reply to these accusations it may be well to state what we admit and what we deny. We admit that the act of the twenty-fifth session of Basle, which named Florence as the place of assembly, was not passed by the majority of the votes, but by the minority. We admit that the pope chose an Italian city, and that he guaranteed to the eastern bishops a safe-conduct home. We deny that he exceeded the bounds of his authority or acted with any cunning or duplicity toward the Greeks, who were anxious to promote a reunion, and especially desirous to meet the Latin bishops at the very place which the papal legates designated. The minority of the Council of Basle comprised the best and most influential prelates, while the majority was composed chiefly of simple country priests, and of servants of the bishops, who had been admitted into the congregations with the right of voting. It is also Catholic doctrine that the pope, who alone has the power to call an oecumenical council, has the right to transfer it, when called, from one place to another. The reason why Florence was chosen is evident enough to any honest reader of history. There was no "barter of temporal and spiritual gains" between the pope and the emperor. The eastern bishops signed the decrees with perfect willingness, and no constraint was used with them. Even before the interview between them at the council many of them had pressed the emperor to act in this matter of reunion, and went so far as to declare that, should he refuse to take part, they would assume the responsibility themselves. There is nothing which Eugenius did which any pontiff would not have done, who, under the circumstances which surrounded him, felt called to seek the peace and salvation of the eastern churches. All attempts to injure the credit or authority of the Council of Florence prove unavailing to any one who receives facts as they are, without color of prejudice.

4. It is, however, time to notice what Mr. Ffoulkes asserts in regard to the Crusades. The pontiff who, according to him, had built up an authority upon forged decretals, sought by means of the Crusades to "complete by force the ecclesiastical aggrandizement of the papacy." "He attempted to subjugate the churches of the east to that of Rome in the way opposed to the canons, and this was exactly what he completed on the capture of Constantinople." The answer to this charge, as far as the animus of the pope was concerned, has already been made. We have shown how Innocent III. had no need to build up a power which he already possessed, and which his predecessors for centuries had claimed and exercised. Then it is simply untrue that the popes had any idea of subjugating the eastern churches in the encouragement which they gave to the Crusades. Let Mr. Ffoulkes refute himself. In his _Christendom's Divisions_ he acknowledges that "for two hundred years the east had been calling upon the west for assistance, and that the principal actors in these wars advocated a great cause, and one of the holiest struggles ever undertaken in self-defence." There was only one reason why the Christian arms were turned against Constantinople, and that was the necessity of protecting the Crusaders against treachery and destruction by Greek perfidy. "There was a growing feeling in Europe," says Mr. Ffoulkes, "that the Greeks were at the bottom of all the misfortunes of the Latins in the east." Of Conrad's army sixty thousand fell beneath the swords of the Mussulmans through the treason of the Greek guides. The emperor made every effort to ensnare the formidable army of Louis VII., and forced the third Crusade, at great loss, to get to the Holy Land by sea. Barbarossa could hardly save his soldiers from the insidious artifices which were plotted against him. But let the historian Gibbon, whose judgment is certainly not partial to the Latins, decide the matter:

"It was secretly and perhaps tacitly resolved," he says, "by the
prince and people (Greek) to destroy, or at least to discourage
the pilgrims by every species of injury and oppression, and their
want of prudence and discipline continually afforded the pretence
or the opportunity. The western monarchs had stipulated a safe
passage and a fair market in the country of their Christian
brethren; the treaty had been ratified by oath and hostages, and
the poorest soldier of Frederic's army was furnished with three
marks of silver to defray his expenses on the road. But every
engagement was violated by treachery and injustice, and the
complaints of the Latins are attested by the honest confession of
a Greek historian who has dared to prefer truth to his country.
Instead of a hospitable reception, the gates of the cities, both
in Europe and Asia, were closely barred against the Crusaders,
and the scanty pittance of food was let down from the walls....
In every step of their march they were stopped or misled; the
governors had private orders to fortify the passes and break
down the bridges against them; the stragglers were pillaged and
murdered; the soldiers and horses were pierced in the woods by
arrows from an invisible hand; the sick were burnt in their beds;
and the dead bodies were hung on gibbets along the highways. These
injuries exasperated the champions of the cross, who were not
endowed with evangelical patience, and the Byzantine princes, who
had provoked the unequal conflict, promoted the embarkation and
march of these formidable guests."

As far as Innocent III. is concerned, it is evident from his letters that he was wholly averse to the capture of Constantinople, and that he accepted the establishment of the new empire only as a means of securing the soil which had been hallowed by the footsteps of our Lord. And when he appointed Thomas Morosini in the place of John Lamater, who had deserted his see, he only used his supreme authority as the head of the church.

"Innocent," says Mr. Ffoulkes, "was no lawless invader of the
rights of others, but rather one of the most eminent and exact
canonists that ever adorned the chair of Peter; and if he took the
loftiest views of the prerogatives of his see, it was because he
believed them to be thoroughly consonant with law and equity."

We think our objector must have been driven for argument, and somewhat demented, when he sought the Crusades for witnesses against the authority and conceded rights of the Roman pontiff.

5. Now comes the conclusion, which is not contained in the premises, but which, as the _ex cathedra_ assertion of Mr. E. S. Ffoulkes, has all the value of his personal experience. He joined the Catholic Church some years ago, and has not yet formally renounced it, as far as we know, although he has incurred an _ipso facto_ excommunication by obstinately sustaining heretical propositions and refusing submission to the judgment of the holy see. He went often to confession and communion until he was refused permission to receive the sacraments. He does not tell the world that he purposes to leave us, though he does say that he ought never to have abandoned the English Church, whose memories still expand his heart. He charges the pope with being an usurper by many means of fraud, and he even seems to deny any patriarchal jurisdiction in England. Being a judge of the operations of the Holy Spirit, he finds that converts do not become any more pious by their submission to Rome, and to his mind the Protestant parsonage is "the perfect ideal of practical Christianity." To illustrate what a peculiar mind he has, we will only add, as a piece of curious information, that he draws conclusions from what the Council of Trent did not do. "Luther was excommunicated, but the Confession of Augsburg has not been yet anathematized." "Queen Elizabeth was deposed, but the council deliberately abstained from affirming that the bishops consecrated in her reign were no bishops." "Even the Thirty-nine Articles _escaped censure_." "Anglican orders, if they have not been recognized in practice, have never been declared invalid; still less have the grounds of their invalidity been set forth." Our readers who know any thing of ecclesiastical history may judge whether Mr. Ffoulkes is sane or not. What else did the Council of Trent do but condemn the peculiar tenets of Augsburg, and the doctrines contained in the Thirty-nine Articles? Can any thing be plainer than this? How have Anglican orders been passed over in silence, or even delicately handled? Every child who reads the Catholic catechism knows that holy order is a sacrament that cannot be reiterated without sacrilege. Yet in every instance where an Anglican minister has been advanced to any order of the clergy, ordination has been given, as to a mere layman, and that without any condition whatever. Such has been the invariable practice of the church, and this upon the highest authority, so that it has passed into a universal rule. "Anglican orders," he says, "have never been declared invalid; still less have the grounds of their invalidity been set forth." We will quote him a decision of the Holy Office and a decree of the pope, bearing date April 17th, 1704. As he has found so many things which are substantially untrue, why did he not find this decree before he ventured to publish his letter? We give as nearly a literal translation as possible:

"In the general Congregation of the Holy Roman and Universal
Inquisition, held in the apostolical palace at St. Peter's,
in the presence of our most holy lord, Clement XI., by divine
providence pope, and the most eminent and reverend lords, the
cardinals of the holy Roman Church, the aforesaid memorial having
been read, our most holy lord, the aforesaid pope, having heard
the sentiments of the same eminent personages, decreed that the
petitioner, John Clement Gordon, be promoted from the commencement
to all, even the holy orders, and the priesthood; and that, as he
has not been fortified by the sacrament of confirmation, he be
confirmed."

Dr. Gordon was the Anglican bishop of Galloway. He went to Rome, and was there received into the communion of the church. The whole question of his orders was carefully examined, and the above is the conclusion of the supreme authority of the Roman pontiff. "The grounds of the invalidity of English orders have never been set forth," says Mr. Ffoulkes. Let us still further quote the petition in the case of Dr. Gordon:

"It cannot be granted that they (the Anglican bishops) have
received the ministry from Catholics, since no evidence is
produced of successive ordination. Without this, there remains no
vestige of consecration with these heretics, besides a ministry
derived from the people or a lay-prince. Moreover, supposing
even that some one of them had received, by means of legitimate
succession, the episcopal ordination and consecration, (which,
however, is by no means proved,) still, their orders must now be
pronounced invalid _through the defect of matter, form, and due
intention_."

We presume the argument in this case will have little weight with our objector or his friends; but we trust no one will say again that Rome has never pronounced a judgment on the question of Anglican orders. Still, after the letter we are reviewing, as well as many things we have seen and heard in the ritualistic quarter, we can never be taken by surprise again. Should they tell us that the pope is excommunicated by his own decree, it will not ruffle our peace; for in the Protestant religion each man is an infallible pontiff, whose decisions go beyond the domain of faith, and rule in the field of history and science. "If facts are not to our liking in the past, let us rewrite them, and make a history to suit ourselves," is the language of their acts.

We are not disposed to battle with the personalities of Mr. Ffoulkes. Perhaps he has an improper standard by which to determine the degrees of sanctity; and this is likely to be the case if the "English parsonage with its surroundings" is the norm of perfection. Where men are as mere men, we put one against another, and set forth the hundreds of converts in our own day with their experience against Mr. E. S. Ffoulkes and one or two others. Hundreds can testify that they have seen more of real piety and true devotion in the Catholic Church than they had ever dreamed possible before they knew the only mother of saints. Words are of little value, and assertions can be bandied about from one mouth to another. Deeds are the test--deeds of self-denial, patience, and unselfish charity.

As for the sincerity of those who are seeking the truth, and are in fervor at the first sight of the Catholic faith, we have only to say that so long as they are obedient to the heavenly voice which calls every honest heart to the one home of holiness, it is well with their souls. When the crisis comes, and the hour when action must decide the forward or backward march of the intellect, moved and enlightened by grace, then is God chosen for ever, or renounced. Then grace may linger around the heart which it loved, and only slowly withdraw, leaving still the attractions of nature, and the good gifts which are only for time, and bear no fruit in eternity. We would not dare to judge where grace ends and nature begins, for both orders are singularly blended in this scene of probation. But one thing we do know--God is true, though every man be a liar. He cannot fail us; his revelation cannot pass away into a fable. "The pillar and ground of the truth" standeth firm. And notwithstanding Mr. Ffoulkes's convictions, we are not afraid to trust our good works to the judgment of mankind. Tares are mixed with the wheat; the net of Peter incloses good and bad fishes, and scandals must be found even in the house of God; but nevertheless, in quiet and unostentatious beauty the true spouse of Christ is ever bringing forth fruits which, though unappreciated on earth, shall bloom beyond the skies in the sunlight of God's presence. Sacrifice is a law of Catholic piety which takes its type from Calvary and its inspiration from the Sacred Heart. We live in a different atmosphere from our Protestant brethren, and self-denial is second nature to us; self-denial practised so spontaneously that the effort and the trial are hidden in the graciousness of the Christian life. No sect, and no individuals, with some rare exceptions, have caught the spirit of our religion, which makes heroic virtue easy, and hides real sanctity in many hearts that beat only for God. If Mr. Ffoulkes did not find that perfect rest for his intellect and his heart which he expected in the Catholic Church, the reason of this is, that he never submitted himself unreservedly to her supreme and infallible authority and guidance. Humility and obedience are the touchstone of true Catholic virtue, and in both these qualities his writings and conduct show him to be singularly wanting. We wish for him a better mind, and the grace of a genuine conversion, and we trust that he may yet repair the grievous wrong he has done to religion by his unfilial and rebellious conduct toward our holy mother the Catholic Church.

FOOTNOTES:

[147] This dilemma is nothing at all in Mr. Ffoulkes's eyes. He has recently published a pamphlet in which he proposes to the Council of the Vatican, as a conundrum, the question whether the whole western church is under an anathema.--ED. CATHOLIC WORLD.

[148] The definition was drawn up by the prelates of the Greek Synod, which sat separately until the act of union had been consummated.--ED. CATHOLIC WORLD.

THE HISTORY OF THE IRISH LAND TENURE.

Those who are not well acquainted with the condition of things in Ireland might easily suppose that the existence of the odious Established Church was the main cause of the dissatisfaction of the Irish people, and that they would, consequently, be satisfied with its disestablishment. This, however, is an error. The main grievance of the Irish people remains unredressed. There is still in the relation of landlord and tenant in that country a very prolific source of future difficulty. So far only as the payment of tithes subtracted from the scant earnings of the peasantry, the church establishment could be called an infringement on the rights of property; but its existence was looked upon rather as an encroachment upon abstract justice than as a source of material oppression. The evils of the land tenure, however, which had their origin many centuries ago, and which time has somewhat modified, but not obliterated, are of a far more serious and practical nature. The landlord, by every test which can be applied, has a legal right to his estates; yet the situation weighs heavily upon the tenant, and prostrates the country. Laws which should compel a proprietor to dispose of his property would be regarded as tending to agrarianism, and as an infringement upon private rights; but no country can be prosperous, or its people happy, while the great body of the population is dependent upon the power and caprice of a few landed monopolists. As the record of the past in this connection is an interesting one--a long story, dating still further back than the reign of Henry II., and the latter part of the twelfth century--we will review it briefly for the benefit of those who have never studied carefully or have forgotten the great wrong which for centuries has oppressed the Irish race.

In ancient times, in addition to the four grand divisions of Leinster, Munster, Ulster, and Connaught, there was another, the property of the paramount sovereign. As there does not appear to have been any rule of precedence, however, among the four kings, except that of their ability to repress their rivals by force of arms, the territory must have been very frequently in debate. These several kingdoms were subdivided into a large number of principalities, each inhabited by a distinct sept, and governed by its own chieftain, called a carfinny, or toparch. These petty chiefs were in their own dominions independent; they created laws, administered justice, made war or peace, and so long as they did not encroach upon the privileges of their superior sovereign, were unmolested and unquestioned. They were elective too; and in this respect the primitive institutions of Ireland were founded upon that execrable system which has distracted and destroyed every kingdom in which it has been attempted. The choice of toparchs was limited, however, by the laws of tanistry to noble families; and the tanist was always selected upon the accession and during the lifetime of the ruling toparch. Under such a system intrigue and conflict between the septs, and between individuals of the same sept, must have been perpetual; and it is easy to see that the conditions were prepared which would make eventual subjugation by foreign arms an easy task.

But we now come to a still more obnoxious feature of the institutions of Ireland under the Milesian rule; and it will be no relief to the miseries entailed upon this unfortunate island, that the same peculiarity, modified in other countries, existed very generally during the feudal ages. The property in each district was regarded as the common possession of the entire sept, but the distribution of the shares was intrusted to the toparch. The people themselves had absolutely no property in the soil; that right belonged exclusively to the chief, and tenants were removed whenever it suited his convenience or caprice. There were many causes that could lead to change. The death of the old toparch and the accession of a new one, the addition of new members to the sept, or the death of those already in the occupancy of a piece of soil, were some of the many causes that made the land tenure very precarious; and the custom of inheritance by gavelkind, which differed from the system of England and Wales, is thought to have perpetuated the evil. Females were excluded, and no distinction was made between legitimate and illegitimate children. The common people were divided into freemen and betages. The former had the privilege of changing their sept; but the latter were common property with the soil, and transferred with it in every deed or sale. Under a liberal government, and by the aid of a good administration, the people of Ireland might have been, in the course of seven hundred years, completely extricated from this situation; but, as we shall see in the sequel, it has been the policy of the Norman nobility in that country, if not of the English government itself, to maintain as far as possible the original condition of things. Such were the institutions of Ireland at the beginning of the ninth century, when the Danish monarch Turgesius overran the entire island, and subjugated the inhabitants to his authority. His dominion was of short duration, however; for at the battle of Clontarf, fought on Good-Friday, A.D. 1014, the celebrated Brien Boiroimhe gave him a permanent leave of absence from the five provinces, and a limited monarchy in the seaports. But the factions inherent in the Irish system of government at that time placed the national independence at the mercy of a foreign aggressor, and the ambition of the Norman element in England soon marked the island as a prize worthy an adventure at arms.

The immediate cause of the invasion was the act of young Dermod McMurchaid, King of Leinster, who ran off with the beautiful Devorghal, wife of O'Rourke, and princess of Breffny. Having, by reason of this outrage, been driven from his kingdom, he invited Richard Strongbow, Earl of Pembroke, and Robert Fitzstephen, to his assistance. Thus the dissensions among the Irish princes opened the way for the adventure of the Norman noblemen. A few hundred Norman cavaliers, followed by comparatively a handful of infantry, were sufficient to secure a permanent footing, an event most singular when we take into consideration the military record which those people have made since that period. But the Irish have always shown a capacity to fight better in any other cause than their own. True, the Norman adventurers from England did not succeed immediately in the subjugation of the entire island. Their dominion was limited to a small area; but they found and used those elements of discord among the native rulers which made their situation impregnable against those who still cherished the idea of freedom and independence. The Irish were worsted in every considerable conflict; not so much, perhaps, through the superiority of their adversaries as by reason of their own disunion.

The new rulers endeavored only to consolidate their power, and made no effort for the reformation of existing institutions. If they found a large proportion of the inhabitants in a condition akin to serfdom, there was certainly no motive why they should desire to change the situation. It only gave them more personal consideration and power. Hence, we find that Strongbow and his associates had hardly established themselves in their new dominions before they strove to perpetuate the old customs of tenure and descent. The distinction between the new settlers and the natives was carefully preserved; and the benefit of English laws permitted only to Normans, to the citizens of seaport towns,--who were still, it is to be presumed, in great part Danes--and to a few who had received charters of denization as a matter of personal favor. Five septs only, say the historians, were received within the English pale, and the rest were all accounted aliens or enemies, who, even down to the reign of Elizabeth, had no rights which an Englishman was bound to respect.

The Great Charter, wrested from King John, and confirmed by Henry III., did not benefit Ireland. English laws and jurisprudence were extended over those portions of the island known as the English pale, and during the reign of King John the lands subject to the crown were divided into counties, sheriffs appointed, and supreme courts of law established in Dublin. But these improvements were made rather as a convenience for the English than for the protection of the native inhabitants. During the reign of Edward I., we read that Lord De Clare, connected by marriage with the Geraldines, then the most powerful Norman house in Ireland, was granted extensive domains in Thomond. No regard was paid to the rights of native possessors in this transfer, and though a war, in which the new proprietor was defeated by O'Brien, an Irish chieftain, was the result, no considerable advantages seem to have been derived from the conflict. At the close of the century, we are told that all hopes of independence were resigned, and eight thousand marks offered to the king for the rights of British subjects. No doubt the cupidity of the monarch would have been gratified by so profitable a disposal of privileges, but the favor was not granted by reason of the opposition of the local aristocracy. At the first constitutional parliament, summoned in 1295 by Sir John Wogan, several judicious acts are said to have been passed; but we are unable to see in what manner they operated in favor of the native inhabitants. After the war caused by the invasion of Ireland by Edward Bruce, in the year 1315, the exaction of "coyne and livery" by the impoverished barons first appears, and the method of supporting an army by quartering it on the people was instituted. During a period of active hostilities, and upon the territory of an enemy, such an expedient may be pardonable; but in a country regulated by what was nominally a domestic government it would be hard to perpetrate an act of grosser tyranny.

To afford an idea of the situation of the native inhabitants at this period, we will instance the statute of Kilkenny, passed in the year 1367, by a parliament summoned by the Duke of Clarence. This precious bit of legal wisdom provides that marriage, fosterage, or gossipred with the Irish, or submission to the Irish law, should be regarded as high treason, and punished accordingly. This fosterage or gossipred, of which the English legislators were so fearful, was the practice, traditional among the Irish, of allowing the children of the nobility to be nursed by the wives of the peasantry; and the custom was thought to encourage a sentiment of reciprocal kindness between the lower and the higher orders of the population. The statute also declared that if any man of English descent should adopt an Irish name, be guilty of speaking the Irish language, or follow any of the customs of the country, he should forfeit his estate, or give security for better conduct. It made penal the act of presenting an Irishman to any benefice, or his reception into any monastery. It also forbade the entertainment of any native bard, minstrel, or story-teller; _or the granting of permission for an Irish horse to graze in the pasture of a loyal English subject_. To such a degree had risen the follies of the dominant race in Ireland in the last half of the fourteenth century.

During the reign of Henry VII. we begin to witness that struggle between the Anglo-Irish nobility and the crown which, in the end, without improving the condition of the masses, was the means of breaking down many noble houses, and still further adding to the distresses of the country. In the parliament of 1494, the act known as Poyning's law was passed. Its enactment was secured by Sir Edward Poyning, lord-deputy of the island, and its purpose was to prevent the assembling of an Irish parliament without the consent of the king. It is easy to see in such an act, however wise it might have been considered, the dawn of fresh conflicts of authority.

During the life of Queen Mary, we have an instance of what fearful infamy could be perpetrated under the system of the Irish land tenure. The septs of O'More and O'Carroll, two chiefs who, under a previous reign, had been arrested, thrown into prison, and left there to perish, claimed that their lands could not be justly forfeited through the offence of their toparchs; but that the ground was the property of the clans, and inalienable save through their own acts. An army was the only response to this reasonable claim, and the inhabitants were forcibly ejected. But not this only. The butcheries that signalized the act were such as to make the event infamous in history; and, in the language of a native historian, "the fires of the burning huts were slaked in the blood of the inhabitants." O'Fally and Leix, the territory occupied by the unfortunate septs, were converted into King's and Queen's counties, and the principal towns were called Philipstown and Maryborough, in commemoration of the queen and her husband. This transaction was one of the first fruits of the coming supremacy of the crown over the local aristocracy.

We now come to the reign of Elizabeth, a woman celebrated alike for her capacity and her vices; and such was her force of character, and the consummate ability of her rule, that she has impressed her policy upon the history of Ireland more deeply than any other sovereign. We have not the space to attempt to follow the incidents of this turbulent period; but must be satisfied with a short statement of the policy of Elizabeth as it seems to have been developed in her measures. When the queen was cautioned against the turbulent and designing character of O'Neill, an Irish chief, and Earl of Tyrone, she is said to have replied that she did not care for his rebellion, as it would give her possession of more lands with which to reward her faithful servants. Historians have endeavored to explain away the meaning of this expression, by attributing it to a desire to silence the enemies of the Irish nobleman; but since, from the beginning to the end of her reign, the history of Ireland proves that she acted as though determined to better the instruction, we have to conclude that in a spirit of levity she had inadvertently unmasked her deliberate policy. From first to last it is only a story of rebellions provoked for the purpose of destroying some Irish nobleman, that an English sycophant might be put in possession of his estates.

The reign of James I., which began in 1603, is regarded by English historians as favorable to Ireland; but how, it is difficult to understand. In some respects the regulations of this king were perhaps advantageous. The introduction of English law over the entire island, the abolition of tanistry and gavelkind, and the more general institution of courts of justice, had public sentiment been healthy, might have eventuated in great advantages; but the spirit of religious persecution, which was now becoming implacable, served to keep alive the animosity of the races, and all improvement was more theoretic than real. Previous to this time, patents for English tenure had been granted only to great lords and chieftains; while their vassals, still retaining their own laws and customs, owed no direct allegiance to the crown. Under the new regulation, estates were to descend by the course of common law, and the people were placed within its operation; but they had really no more interest in the soil than formerly. The king was merely substituted for the toparchs, and while the chiefs were humiliated, their subjects were not made more independent. The land held in demesne by the chieftain was all that was left under his absolute control, but his tenants were subject to an annual rent.

Another project, which originated in the fertile brain of Queen Elizabeth, we believe, but which was not successfully executed until the reign of James I., deserves especial notice. This was a plan for driving out the native settlers, that their places might be filled by adventurers from England. Six counties out of the thirty-two into which Ireland was then divided were appropriated for carrying out the experiment, and cut up into portions of one thousand, fifteen hundred, and two thousand acres each. The largest of these estates were for undertakers and servitors of the crown, consisting of great officers of state, and rich adventurers from England; those of the second-class were for servants of the crown in Ireland, and might be peopled by either English or Irish tenants; and those of the third were for natives of the province, when it suited the undertakers to permit them to cultivate the soil. This scheme of cruelty was followed by another, of a still more atrocious character--the search after defective titles. In the long period of civil commotions which preceded the reign of James I., it is to be presumed that many were occupying lands for which they could not show a very clear claim. If the crown could get possession of property through the simple loss of the proof on the part of the occupant that he was entitled to his inheritance, a source of great public profit would be opened out. Eighty-two thousand five hundred acres were by this means apportioned to English settlers, and the national exchequer was correspondingly enriched. Yet in spite of such transactions as these, the reign of King James has been pronounced a happy one for Ireland!

At the time of the accession of Charles I., Ireland was treated simply as a conquered province, not as an integral portion of the British empire, and its inhabitants still looked upon as aliens and enemies. They had no rights which the officers sent by royal authority, and controlled by cupidity, were obliged to respect, and the very desire for the possession of a piece of land inherited by a proprietor of native descent was sufficient reason for an act of attainder for treason or a search after defective titles. To such an extent was this latter species of iniquity carried that, during the first years of the reign of Charles I., and under the administration of Stafford as lord-deputy, more than a quarter of a million of acres were wrested from the real proprietors, and transferred to the hands of English adventurers. Even jurors who sat upon the causes in dispute were imprisoned, and excessive fines imposed, if they refused compliance with the wishes of the king's lieutenant.

Under these circumstances, it was only natural that the Irish should look about for some means of redress. Property was becoming daily less secure; for the successful practice of this species of plunder was a continual encouragement to fresh outrage; and there was no estimate of the degree to which the injury might be carried. But the remedies proposed in the beginning were peaceful. The lords and gentry met together and drew up a bill of rights, and offered to pay a large sum of money for the royal assent. This measure, known as the Charter of Graces, by one of its provisions proposed to limit the title of the king in lands to sixty years. Changes also were asked in the penal code, and a clause was inserted forbidding the lord-deputy, during his term of office, from coming in possession of land either by purchase or confiscation. The demands were in every respect temperate, and nothing more was asked than a reasonable security for private property, and such privileges as the dignity and self-respect of the subject would require. The king, when the charter was first presented for his signature, was inclined to look upon its provisions with favor; but through the influence, it is said, of Lord Strafford, he was induced to withhold his approval. But while this subject was agitating with alternate hopes and fears the minds of the Irish people, a new measure, or rather an extension of the old system, was planned by the lord-deputy. The success of the English colonization scheme, undertaken in Ulster during the reign of James I., had opened the way for still another attempt at dispossessing the native population of their lands; and Connaught was selected as the next field for operations. This second experiment would probably have proved as successful as the first, if the inevitable fruit of so much tyranny had not come to its maturity.